75
22nd Annual Children’s Law Institute January 9, 2015 Kelly Browe Olson Domestic Violence Screening: How Do You Know What You Don’t Know?

Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

22nd Annual Children’s Law Institute January 9, 2015

Kelly Browe Olson

Domestic Violence Screening:

How Do You Know What You Don’t Know?

Page 2: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

AGENDA

Audience Demographics & Most Pressing Questions

What is DV/IPV?

Screening for DV: When, Who and How? What Then?

Best Practices

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 3: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Discussion Questions

In small groups of 2 - 4

Discuss the following for 5 – 8 minutes:

How do you screen for intimate partner violence a part of your job? If you don’t screen, who do you expect to screen?

How much IPV have you seen in your cases? How was it identified, when did it surface?

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 4: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Five things you need to know about

DV/Intimate Partner Violence & Screening

•1. Every court program needs to incorporate an ongoing standardized screening protocol.

•2. Screening should be done with each party separately, preferably in person, before and throughout court or agency processes.

•3. There is not one type of victim. IPV victims and offenders are members of all socio-economic classes, all races, ethnicities and religions. Each victim has a distinct experience.

•4. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) includes psychological, emotional and physical abuse. When deciding how to proceed on a case, it is important to look for patterns of fear, coercion and control, not just orders of protection or physical harm.

•5. Most parties, even parties represented by lawyers, have not been asked about IPV issues in their relationship or been adequately prepared for their role in the process.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 5: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Domestic Violence (Model Code)

Attempting to cause or causing physical harm to another family or household member;

Placing a family or household member in fear of physical harm; or

Causing a family or household member to engage involuntarily in sexual activity by force, threat of force, or duress.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 6: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

New Mexico and National Definitions

30-3-11. Household Members

As used in the Crimes Against Household Members Act (30-3-10 to 30-3-16 NMSA 1978), “household member” means spouse, former spouse or family member, including a relative, parent, present or former step-parent, present or former in-law, a co-parent of a child or a person with whom a person has had a continuing personal relationship.

Suggested Statutory Language

Interpersonal Violence involves the infliction of physical injury or the creation of a reasonable fear thereof and may include a pattern of coercive control involving tactics such as threats, intimidation, psychological and emotional abuse, sexual abuse, isolation of the victim, manipulation of children, and exercise of economic control.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 7: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

INCIDENCE AND NATURE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NEW MEXICO IX: An Analysis of 2008 Data from The New Mexico Interpersonal Violence Data Central Repository

1.The rates of domestic violence, intimate partner

violence and stalking in New Mexico are staggering; and

higher than national comparable rates found in the

National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS).

2. These interpersonal violence crimes are significantly under-reported to law enforcement;

3. There are significantly more victims of interpersonal

violence than ever identified by law enforcement or service providers statewide, especially

in the case of stalking;

4. There are significant co-morbidity and healthcare utilization associated with

interpersonal violence; and

5. There are significant differences between males

and females in the experience and adjudication of

interpersonal violence crimes.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

1

Page 8: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

New Mexico Statistics From NMCSAP

Statewide Victimization Survey 2010:

• Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21%

• Percent Those EVER a Victim of Intimate Partner Violence That Filed Protection Orders 23%

• Percent Those EVER a Victim of Stalking That Filed Protection Orders 26%

District Court Protection Orders Issued Statewide 2010 3,638

Percent of Law Enforcement Identified Incidents 28%

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

http://www.nmcsap.org/DV_IN_NM_2010_Nov2011_FACT_SHEET.pdf

Page 9: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

What is Domestic or Intimate Partner Violence?

Physical Violence

Sexual Violence

Emotional Abuse

Economic Abuse

Intimidation Isolation Minimizing, Denying & Blaming

Coercion & Threats

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

How are these visible in child welfare cases?

Page 10: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

How Perpetrators Use Children

Using children to make victim feel guilty

Using children to relay messages

Using visitation to harass

Threatening to take children/report victim

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 11: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

The Who: The Abused Party

Found in all age, racial, socioeconomic,

educational, occupational, and

religious groups;

May or may not have been victimized as

children;

DV is under the control of the perpetrator, not

the victim.

Some very isolated; Isolation combined with

misinformation, Realistic fear of escalating

violence,

Worse when seek help, depending on response of

“system”.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 12: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

What About the Children?

Trust and security necessary for healthy upbringing shattered.

Confused and terrified by abusive parent’s behavior;

Children frightened for their own safety;

Children are the silent victims;

Focus on perpetrators or their victims;

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 13: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

WHY DOESN’T SHE JUST LEAVE?

•Question erroneously implies that leaving the batterer necessarily increases the woman’s safety.

•Puts emphasis on what she didn’t do, rather that all that she has done.

•Why not ask “Why does he abuse his family?”

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 14: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Why Some Victims Stay

• Belief in cultural/family/religious values that encourage the maintenance of the family unit at all costs;

• Continual hope and belief in the perpetrator’s promises to change and to stop being violent;

• Lack of real alternatives for employment and financial assistance, especially for victims with children;

• Lack of affordable legal assistance necessary to obtain a divorce, custody order, restraining order, or protection order;

• Lack of affordable housing that would provide safety for the victim and children;

• Being told by others that the violence is the victim’s fault.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 15: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

How might the following behaviors be used as a means to dominate and control a family member?

•Pushing a family member down a flight of stairs

•Throwing something at a family member

•Opening a family member’s mail

•Hiding a family member’s car keys

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Exercise 1

Page 16: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Exercise 1 continued

(CREATED BY LORETTA FREDERICK)

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

How might the following behaviors be used as a means of protection of self or others from or for a family member?

• Pushing a family member down a flight of stairs

• Throwing something at a family member

• Opening a family member’s mail

• Hiding a family member’s car keys

Page 17: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Exercise 2

Foster Parent (FP) who forbids visitation on a regular basis and it isn’t reported to authorities

FP reporting to case workers that mom or dad is acting erratically and may be using again

FP telling children that if their parent does what they are supposed to do, the children will get to go home

• How might the proceeding behaviors be used as a means to dominate and control a parent?

• How might these same behaviors be used as means of protection (of self and/or children)?

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 18: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

If ‘violence’ or ‘abuse’ is an issue in your case, would you know?

How would you know?

How could it affect what your client needs or wants?

What difference would it make to your representation if you know?

If you discover or are told that there is DV, what would you do with that information?

Take Five Minutes and talk in small groups about these questions.

• From Loretta Frederick CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 19: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Challenge assumptions

Screen on an ongoing basis for new issues or reoccurrence of older issues

Match families with appropriate procedures & services

Use of a Domestic Violence Typology

Page 20: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Need for Caution and Research

Typologies are theoretical in nature

All domestic violence must be taken seriously

Different ≠ less important

Typologies make distinctions look too simple (the lines are not so bright in practice)

Much more research is needed in this area!

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 21: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

“Coercive or Violent Relationship”

• Coercive controlling violence

• Violent resistance

Coercion with violent acts

• Incipient or nonviolent coercive control

Coercion without violent

acts

• Conflict-instigated violence

• Other violence

Violent acts without

coercion

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 22: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Coercive-Controlling Violence

Coercive Control

Escalates Over Time

Male Perpetrator

Violence as One Tactic

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 23: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Coercive-Controlling Tactics

Physical/sexual abuse

Economic control

Isolation

Manipulation of Children

Emotional abuse

Threats

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 24: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Coercion (Dutton & Goodman)

Setting the stage

Demand with threat

Surveillance

Consequence

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 25: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Changes Dynamics of Relationship

“Once the pattern of coercive control is established, both parties understand differently the meaning of specific

actions and words. Domestic violence is not simply a list of discrete behaviors, but is a pattern of behavior exhibited by the

batterer that includes words, actions, and gesture, which, taken together establish power and control over an intimate partner.” (Mary Ann Dutton)

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 26: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Coercive-Controlling Perpetrators

Possessive

Manipulative

Use children & court

Entitlement

Self-centered

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 27: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Victims of Coercive-Controlling Violence

Abuse

•PTSD

•Poor health

•Unemployment

•Housing issues

•Other cases??

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 28: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Victims of Coercive-Controlling Violence

Actively seek help

Likely to leave abuser

Recovery linked to safety

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 29: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Involvement of Children

Use child to communicate threats

Use access to child to coerce and harass

Reward child for rejecting or punishing other parent

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 30: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Interventions?

Contraindicated: anger management programs, joint legal or physical custody, unmodified mediation

Indicated: safety planning, supervised parenting time, accountability

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 31: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Victims of Coercive-Controlling Violence

Most Victims Use Some Violence to Protect Themselves

See Pattern

Resist

Placate

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 32: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Violent Resistance

Female victim of Coercive Controlling Violence defends against aggressive male partner

• Self-defense or pre-emptive violence

May be more likely to be injured

• Distinguish between female initiator of Conflict-instigated violence and defense against Coercive Controlling Violence

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 33: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Violent Resistance to Coercion

Violent

Controlling

Perpetrator

May be violent

Not controlling

Violent Resistor

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 34: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Things Are Not Always What They Seem

• A women wears the same outfit everyday, rarely goes out, and continually paces back and forth in a small space. How do you explain her behavior?

Context &

Patterns

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 35: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Is Control Part of Relationships?

“Normal”

• No violence

• Little or no control

• Little or no coercion

Incipient coercive-control

• No (recent) violence

• Pattern of control

• Pattern of coercion

Coercive-controlling violence

• Violence

• Pattern of control

• Pattern of coercion

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 36: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

NON-Coercive-Controlling Violence

Conflict-Instigated violence

Separation-Instigated violence

Violence stemming from severe mental illness

???

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 37: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Situational Couple Violence

Disagreement spirals into violent incident

• NO larger pattern of coercive control

Equally initiated by man or woman

• But women suffer more consequences . . .

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 38: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Situational Couple/Conflict Instigated Violence

Fewer per couple

incidents

Fewer & potentially less severe

injuries

Doesn’t escalate

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 39: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Conflict-Instigated Violence

•Sources of conflict

•Patterns of communication

•Individual factors

Risk Factors

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 40: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Victims of Situational Couple Violence

May attempt to negotiate with partner

Other strategies

More likely to work on relationship than leave

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 41: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Frequency and Severity

Coercive-controlling

• Very severe

• Severe

• Somewhat severe

Non-coercive-controlling

• Very severe

• Severe

• Somewhat severe

Other

• Very severe

• Severe

• Somewhat severe

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 42: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Research on Patterns

Useful to:

• Understand counterintuitive

• Ask questions

• Investigate

Do NOT use to:

• Diagnose

• Shortcut screening & assessment

• Label complex situations

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 43: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU EXPECT TO SEE?

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 44: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Put DV/IPV In Context

Patterns of male and female violence within adult intimate relationships are usually very different;

Male and female violence happens within different contexts and generally has very different consequences;

Both the violence itself and the barriers to ending violence are strongly related to societal issues (economics, child care, transportation, etc.)

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 45: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Response to different types of violence

What court procedures and services are appropriate in cases of Coercive Controlling Violence?

• Safety

• Protection

What processes and services are appropriate in cases of Situational Couple Violence?

• Case by Case Analysis

Blanket prohibitions on some processes keep families from programs that would help

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 46: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Why is screening so important?

Some professionals believe that they will be able to easily identify victims and perpetrators of IPV, but studies have shown that most professionals are mistaken in this belief.

The media depictions of uneducated, lower socio-economic status women with hidden bruises who are abused by powerful menacing dominant men are not representative. IPV victims and offenders are members of all socio-economic classes, all races, ethnicities and religions. Each victim has a distinct story and handles her experience differently.

•Connie J. A. Beck, J. Michael Menke & Aurelio Jose Figueredo, Validation of a Measure of Intimate Partner Abuse (Relationship Behavior Rating Scale–Revised) Using Item Response Theory Analysis, 55 Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 54 (2013).

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 47: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Simplicity Nuance

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 48: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

The P5 Analysis

Potency: frequency and severity of violence

Pattern: history and context of violence

Primary Perpetrator: source of violence

Parenting Problems: capacities and deficits

Perspectives of the child: impact of violence

Janet R. Johnston, et al. “In the Name of the Child,” Springer Publishing Co., 2009

January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 49: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Important Elements of a Screening Protocol

Confidential face-to-face interviews

Written questionnaires

Continuing observation and check in

Documentary review

Risk assessment

Safety planning

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 50: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Face-to-Face Interviews

Confidential

Open-ended questions

At any time in process

Examples:

• ABA Commission on Domestic Violence

• MSBA Domestic Abuse Committee

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 51: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

What are you listening for?

How are decisions about money made?

What activities do you engage in outside the home?

Describe the relationship your children have with your partner.

What is the worst thing your partner will say about you?

(MSBA DA Committee)

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 52: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Written Questionnaires & Checklists

May use during interviews

Vary in purpose, length, validity

One-size-doesn’t-fit-all

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 53: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Wording matters

• Explicit questions led to answers that broader questions missed.

• Standardized interviews should include questions about safety, control, fear and the parties’ perceived ability to negotiate with each other.

• Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Connie Beck and Amy Applegate, The Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MAS1C): A Screening Interview for Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Available in the Public Domain, 48 Fam. Ct. Rev. 646 (2010).

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 54: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Screening instruments should

• Be focused on risk assessment

• Be gender neutral in choice of language

• Include questions for each partner about both partners' violence.

• Allow parties to respond individually outside the presence of the other party

Studies have shown that questionnaires alone are not as effective as a combined written and verbal interview or conversation.

Page 55: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 56: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Why Is Screening So Important?

They do not all

create the same potential risks of further harm

have the same implications for how to handle the case

have same implications for visitation, services or a child

returning home

Every past, present or threatened act of intimate partner violence does NOT have the same SIGNIFICANCE…

Every act of intimate partner violence is NOT the same…

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 57: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Screening

Identification of adult domestic or family violence through careful intake screening and preliminary risk assessment, followed by thorough investigation, is essential if parents are to be afforded the life preserving assistance necessary for effective parenting and child protection.[iv]

[iv]National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence: A Model State Code, p. 38 of the Commentary, (1992).

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 58: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

DV Screening by Attorneys

Interviews Show It Is Often:

• Limited to physical violence

• Needs to be recent to be deemed relevant

• Usually limited to one question

• Often reliant on “gut” feeling

• Based on a limited version of what a “true battered woman” looks like, i.e., Julia Roberts or Jennifer Lopez

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 59: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

“A guardian ad litem should have expertise in recognizing and understanding domestic violence and its effects on children and victim parents.”

Understanding how domestic violence affects children is critical to making decisions that prioritize children’s safety.

January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 60: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

National Child Custody Differentiation Project

Identifying Domestic Abuse

• Determining Whether Domestic Abuse Is Or May Be An Issue In The Case

Understanding The Nature And Context Of Domestic Abuse

• Ascertaining Who Is Doing What To Whom, Why, And To What Effect);

Determining The Implications Of Abuse

• Establishing The Consequences And Realities Of Living With Abuse

Accounting For The Nature, Context And Implications Of Abuse In All Case-related Recommendations And Decisions.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP), the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), Praxis International, and the US Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women

Page 61: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Research has identified:

•Lack Of Clarity Regarding Professional Roles And Functions

• Inconsistent screening, assessment and assumptions about domestic abuse

•Poorly informed decision-making

•Disconnected interventions and services

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Very little agreement exists among practitioners about the meaning of commonly used terminology like domestic violence, high conflict, parental alienation, and best interests

National Child Custody Differentiation Project

Page 62: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

BWJP recommends that

Practitioners employ a screening device that is sensitive to a broad range of characteristics, including physical, sexual, emotional, economic and coercive controlling abuse.

This approach is consistent with the research that suggests that screening for multiple forms of abuse, including coercive control, is more likely to detect physical and sexual abuse, threats to life, and the kind of relational distress that makes co-parenting with an abuser especially difficult, dangerous, or even impossible than screening for physical violence alone.

Connie J.A. Beck & Chitra Raghavan (2010). Intimate Partner Abuse Screening in Custody Mediation: The Importance of Assessing Coercive Control, Family Court Review, 48: 555-565. Nancy Ver Steegh & Clare Dalton (2008). Report from the Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts, Family Court Review, 46:454-475; Joan B. Kelly & Michael P. Johnson (2008). Differentiation Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update and Implications for Interventions, Family Court Review, 46:476-499, pp. 486-87; Loretta Frederick (2008). Questions About Family Court Domestic Violence Screening and Assessment, Family Court Review, 46: 523-530, pp. 534-55.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 63: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

2 boys, 12 & 10 in state custody since September 2009, taken for inadequate housing and lack of supervision. Mom had substance abuse issues

Children live with Paternal Grandmother, Dad has been in prison since 2007

Mom has made some progress toward reunification, including rehab, parenting classes, however there has been very inconsistent visitation with her kids.

Unsupervised visits were supposed to start in December, but PG made an allegation of drug use. Mom tested negative.

Case worker reports that the boys want to stay with PG. PG says the boys want to stay with her, she wants to adopt. Mom alternates between working hard to reunite and saying the boys would be better off where they are.

January 14, 2011

Page 64: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Three children, one 15 year old girl, 10, 7 year old boys

Girl in state custody since April 2010 due to physical altercation and abuse by dad, dad initially claimed it was mutual. Boys allowed to stay in the home

Mom and Dad living together in the home

Both parents have attended parenting classes, therapy, general compliance with case plan

Unsupervised visits since December 2010 have gone well

Daughter told caseworker she is anxious to return home and be with her brothers

January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 65: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

5 children, combined family, 3 older paternal step-children out of home (15, 13, 11), younger joint children in home.

Children removed on abuse allegations, denied by parents.

15 year old wants to return home, 13 & 11 don’t.

Attorney for state and parents and case workers agree children should return home. Attorney for children is unsure.

In mediation mom expresses concern about the kids coming home, but is otherwise quiet and unexpressive. Dad says if the kids follow his rules, everything will be fine.

In caucus mom reveals that she is thinking of leaving dad and would do so if the state would return her kids.

January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 66: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Increase the victim’s safety

Respect the authority and autonomy of the adult victim to direct their own life

Hold the perpetrator, not the victim, responsible for his/her abusive behavior and for stopping the abuse

January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 67: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

What are the family/system resources available?

• What are the cultural issues relevant to this family?

• What are the strengths of this family?

• What are the administrative capacities of the system

Where is this family in the legal/child welfare system process?

What will happen in this case if there isn’t a problem solving process?

• Best case scenario

• Worst case scenario January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 68: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Policy and Practice Issues

Alternative to “Failure to Protect” approach:

• Protection of child and adult victim of violence, and

• Responsibility of the perpetrator both for the abuse and for stopping it

Confidentiality

• DVPO statutes include provisions for confidentiality

Screening and Assessment of Domestic Violence

• Collaboration with CPS, dv agencies and courts necessary to improve services

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 69: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Shifts in Traditional Child Protection Practice

Identifying domestic violence is critical to the safety of children;

Helping battered women and providing services to them is necessary to keep children safe;

Holding perpetrators of dv accountable for stopping the violence is essential to protecting children.

January 14, 2011 CLI 2011 DV Dynamics in Child Protection Cases

Page 70: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Case Scenario

5 children, combined family, 3 older paternal step-children out of home, (15, 13, 11), joint children in home.

Children removed on abuse allegations, denied by parents. 15 year old wants to return home, 13 & 11 year old don’t.

Attorney for state and case workers agree children should return home. Attorney for children is unsure.

When mom and dad meet with attorney she expresses concern about the kids coming home, but is otherwise quiet and unexpressive. Dad says if the kids follow his rules, everything will be fine.

When dad leaves the room for a phone call, Mom tells attorney that case worker told her to pretend everything is fine and then leave dad after the kids return home.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 71: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Decision-making process

What will happen in this case if there isn’t a problem solving process?

Best case scenario Worst case scenario

What are the family/system resources available?

What are the cultural issues relevant to this family?

What are the strengths of this family?

What are the administrative capacities of the system?

Where is this family in the legal/child welfare system process?

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 72: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

BEST PRACTICES

In Small Groups: Discuss your best practices in cases of suspected abuse.

Have you seen situations where the DV has been missed or ignored? i.e., Women told to leave partner, but no services or assistance offered.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 73: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Online screening resources

Michigan online resources:

• http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/Domestic%20Violence%20Screening%20Training%20for%20Mediators.pdf

• http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/standards/odr/Domestic%20Violence%20Screening%20Protocol.pdf

• http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/ModelCtProtocolDomesticMediation.pdf.

Relationship Behavior Rating Scale–Revised (RBRS-r) can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.743830

The Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC) can be viewed at http://courtadr.org/library/view.php?ID=5798 CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 74: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

Guiding Principles for Intervention

•Increase the victim’s safety

•Respect the authority and autonomy of the adult victim to direct their own life

•Hold the perpetrator, not the victim, responsible for his/her abusive behavior and for stopping the abuse

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening

Page 75: Domestic Violence Screeningswrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/2015-NMCLI_DV-presentation.pdf · •Percent Those EVER a Victim of Domestic Violence That Filed Protection Orders 21% •Percent

The End

Contact Info:

Kelly Browe Olson

Director of Clinical Programs and Associate Professor

U.A.L.R. Bowen School of Law

[email protected]

These slides are a compilation of slides from other presentations done by Nancy Ver Steegh, Loretta Frederick and Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women and me.

All mistakes are my own.

CLI 2015 DV/IPV Screening